"The only power in the world strong enough to deal with the danger created by the splitting of the atom is the unity of the of the human race. You can split the atom and that means you have got to unite the human race if you are going to control it. If you don't, if you are going to split the atom and the human race, you're finished, like the dinosaurs. "

[...] "

"I think it is a great mistake to think of politics in terms of personalities. You know, you kill Saddam or capture him. What difference does that make? You kill Osama Bin Laden, what difference does that make? It isn't about that. It is about movements and what the peace movement is about. Its strength comes in the fact that it is not asking you primarily to elect anyone. Its saying we got to have an understanding of the world and that understanding then becomes the mainstream of opinion, which no political leader could ignore. "

Comment on quote 1: I'm not sure that the splitting of the atom and the social/political/ideological divisions of the current cultural spectrum of this insignificant species are really on the same level. Poetic parallel perhaps, but c'mon...

Comment on quote 2: The symbolic murder (and when isn't murder at least a little symbolic?) of the head of the dissenting opposition would be an important strategic move for the coalition. If fact, it is the only goal the coalition can have. If you assume that the point of the coalition is to rid the world of terrorism or something, it's obviously pointless. The point of the coalition is probably better understood as setting up a counter symbol to the significant symbolic (and deadly) gesture of 9/11. It is only by acting with equal symbolic force that the coalition can *mean* as much. Hence the lack of an outraged response to the Spanish bombings, the French explosive discovery, etc.

PS - Sorry to litter your blog with artspeak Sally. At least I didn't use the word signifier - I just implied that it was there ;)

- AC 4-02-2004 6:50 am

Not sure what you mean when you say "but c'mon..." I agree that the western path of least resistance led to nuclear bombs. But I don't think its a stretch to pose that devastating technological tragectory against the hard, messy slog of forging peace. In fact I find the metaphor quite inspiring.

With regards to point 2: the thing about Benn that I find interesting is his reverse investment. He was an elected representative, and therefore a figurehead in power, but it seems that he decided, at a fairly late stage in his career, to redirect his energy towards the content that such a figurehead supposedly represents. It's a step down in power, but maybe a step up in effecting change. And its a reminder that our own elected representatives are supposed to respond to us. If you want to get all artspeak about it, I'd say this is a call for democractic principles versus the seduction of narrative. The leader in question may seem to be either John Wayne or Darth Vadar, but no matter, they represent an idea shared by a bunch of people. If you wanna change the leadership in any kind of meaningful way (ie; beyond the symbol of the iconic individual), change the ideas that they represent. In practical terms, such a task is probably a lot more difficult than mounting an assassination. Here's another snippet from the Democracy Now transcript with Benn

You've got to replace with consent if you're going to hold the power you've won in order to do what you said you'd do. Otherwise, seized power, revolutions have seized power, could end up like Joe Stalin.